supreme court to take on gay marriage
- Thread starter Nautilus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I don't really know why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by fire coz i am not a theologian but when i read genesis chapter 19 Romans chapter 1, i personally think if we are supporting gay marriage or think its ok to be homo i doubt if that person really know God and btw not only homosexual is sin, sin is sin!
D
So because it's not our nations law I guess everything is just permisable at that point and we shouldn't worry about following any biblical prinicple at all, I mean that seems to be what you are implying.
In my mind and most peoples who are against it, allowing gay marriage is condining the sin. ''oh you like this sin, oh you want to be able to legally be partnered to a person of the same sex, oh that seems like a fine thing''
What else would you like since you did say earlier ?
In my mind and most peoples who are against it, allowing gay marriage is condining the sin. ''oh you like this sin, oh you want to be able to legally be partnered to a person of the same sex, oh that seems like a fine thing''
What else would you like since you did say earlier ?
Well no one is forcing christians to marry people of the same sex with these laws, so why do we care so much what other people choose to do? Im sure by now most homosecuals understand the general beliefs of most christians which is that they are sinners and will go to hell. most of them also at this point simply dont care. And its not our place to make their life choices for them. They are free to choose what they want within rason. them getting married hurts no one else so why is everyone so worried about what someone else does?
Last edited:
K
I'm just saying it doesn't matter politically really when you are speaking about spiritual salvation. Why is this so hard to grasp? Now, it may effect other things, tax dollars, etc.... Those are political issues and social issues.
But when you are speaking spirituality and morality, it doesn't matter if a handful of people in a room somewhere passes a bill. It's the individuals choice whether or not they choose to live in that "sin" or not. They can go ahead and legalize whatever they please. Doesn't change the individual spiritually. And if the the individual is that weak that their beliefs would be shaken by a mere passing of a law, then what good are they anyway? Something else just as easily could have and would have pushed them over the imaginary edge.
Does my point make sense now?
Yes, but i don't agree with you. For me as a christian it DOES matter that 'a handful of people in a room somewhere' decided to legalize 'gay mariage.' It isn't a mere passing of a law, because the decision itself defiles the sanctity of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. What i hold DEAR is made a mockery by legalization of ' gay marriage.' I hope i will get married some day, but i'm sure i will be appalled if i find out two guys decide to marry just before me, or that my church allowes gay marriages to be blessed. 'Gay marriage' does effect my spirituality; i've become more militant in my believes. I know now marriage is worth fighting for to prevent the gays from making it a mockery.
Really two men getting married ruins the sanctity of marriage? Not the 50%+ divorce rate among married couples already both christian and non-christian? Not the fact that people marry for money, citizenship, or pregnancy? But it's that two guys get married? Thats what ruins the sanctity of marriage for you? Marriage is a joke in modern society. Outside of the small percentage of people that actually do marriage the right way why are you so tangled up in the 'sanctity' of it? Thats something between you and God, Other peoples marriages dont ruin the sanctity of yours at all.
well this supposing you even agree with governmental interference in marriage in the first place. Marriage as an institution lost a lot of religiosity if you will, as soon as the government was allowed to use the 'married' status to confer legal rights on people. Most homosexuals I know are only fighting for the same legal rights straight couples get and Im fine with that
Besides the whole thing about gays being married in a church? well i guess by now in your life you know if you go to a church that would allow homosexual weddings and can thus choose how you want to react to protect your worldview.
Its like gay marriage is going to be legalized and then boom pink and fashion tips everywhere and all the straight couples divorcing to turn gay...no in all actuality, you would quit hearing about it, and it probably would never matter ever again
Besides the whole thing about gays being married in a church? well i guess by now in your life you know if you go to a church that would allow homosexual weddings and can thus choose how you want to react to protect your worldview.
Its like gay marriage is going to be legalized and then boom pink and fashion tips everywhere and all the straight couples divorcing to turn gay...no in all actuality, you would quit hearing about it, and it probably would never matter ever again
J
I'm fine with a lot of concessions in this area (tax breaks, etc) but it should never be recognized as a marriage by state or church...
Do you want to visit your sodomite boyfriend in the hospital after a car accident? Have at it, I don't care. Just don't pretend it's a marriage, and the government shouldn't pretend either.
Do you want to visit your sodomite boyfriend in the hospital after a car accident? Have at it, I don't care. Just don't pretend it's a marriage, and the government shouldn't pretend either.
K
First of all, Marriage is a state of mind. I truly feel that a couple can be "married" without having the legal documents. Certainly spirituality has nothing to do with some court papers. Now, legally, you are not married until you are married by a judge, minister, or someone who has the necessary power. I STRONGLY feel that God doesn't or shouldn't work that way. I can't even imagine it, it sounds so absurd. Marriage is supposed to be about love. Greater than love. A passion that brings two kindle spirits together. The "benefits" and "bonuses" are just legal mumbo jumbo.
Second, and again, "socially", "economically", "morally", etc... it might matter if gay marriage is legalized. But Spiritually, it really doesn't matter at all. Sinners are going to sin. It does not stop you from going about trying to convert and speak God's message. If prostitution were legalized, again, it might have social, economical, health, etc.. repercussions, but in a sinful world it will exist regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. If God doesn't like it, it doesn't change that people will do it. What matters is what YOU choose to do or not to do. If YOU can decipher between right and wrong. Politics can and has been evil in many cultures all the time everywhere. You won't change that. They could legalize murder. So what? God doesn't play by mans rules and legalities. It matters not what we legalize or don't legalize. Plenty of things are illegal that should be legal and vice versa. Once again, GOD doesn't play by mans rules and legalities.
Second, and again, "socially", "economically", "morally", etc... it might matter if gay marriage is legalized. But Spiritually, it really doesn't matter at all. Sinners are going to sin. It does not stop you from going about trying to convert and speak God's message. If prostitution were legalized, again, it might have social, economical, health, etc.. repercussions, but in a sinful world it will exist regardless of who likes it and who doesn't. If God doesn't like it, it doesn't change that people will do it. What matters is what YOU choose to do or not to do. If YOU can decipher between right and wrong. Politics can and has been evil in many cultures all the time everywhere. You won't change that. They could legalize murder. So what? God doesn't play by mans rules and legalities. It matters not what we legalize or don't legalize. Plenty of things are illegal that should be legal and vice versa. Once again, GOD doesn't play by mans rules and legalities.
T
I don't comprehend exactly what you're saying here, but if I gather the gist of it correctly, you're asking, so if we don't base our public (national secular) law on the Biblical concept of sin, then you seem to think there is no standard for morality?
If this is not what you are saying, please clarify. DJ, you're usually more fluent in English, so I don't know why I'm having trouble understanding you ... maybe take a step back and think about what you're trying to communicate before you write it?
If this IS what you're trying to say, then I have to say I'm disappointed, because you're also usually smarter than this. You think the only source of morality is religion? Really? Surely, you must realize that is so wrong it's laughable. There are plenty of standards of ethics that have nothing to do with religion. You may not agree 100% with those standards, but they exist, surely you must realize that.
You seem to be indicating that homosexuality should remain illegal, just because it is a sin. Really?
Do you think that all sinful practices should be illegal?
If so, then I'm curious, what do you think should be the punishment for those who choose to work on the Sabbath day -- should the government charge a fine to those businesses and individuals, or should we just arrest and imprison anyone who wants to labor on Saturday? What about taking the Lord's name in vain? Would there be some sort of sliding-fee scale based on the particular word used? And I'm curious -- if you've been canvassing the national media sources to eliminate all uses of swearing, why haven't I heard about this movement before?
What about coveting? How would one go about proving that another person coveted? Would I need to take a person to court and prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, or could I be found guilty of coveting just on someone else's say-so?
And what about gossip? This is not only sin, but an entire industry (tabloid journalism) is based on it. So, are just the writers of these rags culpable, or does the crime extend to the readers, too? Oh, wait, and if you don't actually purchase the magazine, is it okay if you happen to look at the headline while you're waiting in line for groceries, or is even that a sin and therefore a crime?
And don't get me started on gluttony.
Hopefully you see by now how ridiculous it is to claim that US laws should be based on sin.
In the US, laws are based on protecting the rights of the individual. You have the right to swing your arms. That right ends at my face. If your actions in any way hurt or negatively affect me, then the government needs to step in. Thus, driving while intoxicated is illegal. Not because it's a sin (which it is) but because it is highly dangerous for other people on the road. Fraud is illegal, because it takes advantage of others through deceit, not because it is lying, which is a sin. Certain types of murder are illegal, but not all. Killing to protect your property, for example, is lawful, even though the Bible would still call that a sin.
I am categorically and emphatically against any easement of laws against predatory sexual behaviors. This goes to gay and straight alike. Especially since most predatory sex is committed by heterosexual men, I'm not sure why this gets brought up every time someone talks about gay rights, but there it is -- being in favor of gay rights has nothing to do with child sexual abuse.
Other than that, I am hard pressed to think of any way what two men or two women do behind closed doors can possibly do to harm me.
If this is not what you are saying, please clarify. DJ, you're usually more fluent in English, so I don't know why I'm having trouble understanding you ... maybe take a step back and think about what you're trying to communicate before you write it?
If this IS what you're trying to say, then I have to say I'm disappointed, because you're also usually smarter than this. You think the only source of morality is religion? Really? Surely, you must realize that is so wrong it's laughable. There are plenty of standards of ethics that have nothing to do with religion. You may not agree 100% with those standards, but they exist, surely you must realize that.
You seem to be indicating that homosexuality should remain illegal, just because it is a sin. Really?
Do you think that all sinful practices should be illegal?
If so, then I'm curious, what do you think should be the punishment for those who choose to work on the Sabbath day -- should the government charge a fine to those businesses and individuals, or should we just arrest and imprison anyone who wants to labor on Saturday? What about taking the Lord's name in vain? Would there be some sort of sliding-fee scale based on the particular word used? And I'm curious -- if you've been canvassing the national media sources to eliminate all uses of swearing, why haven't I heard about this movement before?
What about coveting? How would one go about proving that another person coveted? Would I need to take a person to court and prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, or could I be found guilty of coveting just on someone else's say-so?
And what about gossip? This is not only sin, but an entire industry (tabloid journalism) is based on it. So, are just the writers of these rags culpable, or does the crime extend to the readers, too? Oh, wait, and if you don't actually purchase the magazine, is it okay if you happen to look at the headline while you're waiting in line for groceries, or is even that a sin and therefore a crime?
And don't get me started on gluttony.
Hopefully you see by now how ridiculous it is to claim that US laws should be based on sin.
In the US, laws are based on protecting the rights of the individual. You have the right to swing your arms. That right ends at my face. If your actions in any way hurt or negatively affect me, then the government needs to step in. Thus, driving while intoxicated is illegal. Not because it's a sin (which it is) but because it is highly dangerous for other people on the road. Fraud is illegal, because it takes advantage of others through deceit, not because it is lying, which is a sin. Certain types of murder are illegal, but not all. Killing to protect your property, for example, is lawful, even though the Bible would still call that a sin.
I am categorically and emphatically against any easement of laws against predatory sexual behaviors. This goes to gay and straight alike. Especially since most predatory sex is committed by heterosexual men, I'm not sure why this gets brought up every time someone talks about gay rights, but there it is -- being in favor of gay rights has nothing to do with child sexual abuse.
Other than that, I am hard pressed to think of any way what two men or two women do behind closed doors can possibly do to harm me.
T
The legal, secular right to marry has nothing to do with "sanctity."
Look it up. "Sanctity" means "the property of being blessed by God, or set aside as holy."
Nothing humans can do outside of God's command can every be sanctified. No marriage, gay, straight, whatever, is going to have "sanctity" unless and until God is there.
Gays don't want to marry because they want God's blessing. (At least most don't.) They are seeking legal, secular rights.
If two people get married in a church, God has blessed that union.
If two people get married without God's blessing, it doesn't matter whether it's a man and a woman, two men, two women, or a sperm whale and a platypus, it's not going to be "sanctified."
The laws concerning gay marriage have NOTHING to do with what God may or may not bless. As if it could (!)
Why is this so hard for you people to understand?
Look it up. "Sanctity" means "the property of being blessed by God, or set aside as holy."
Nothing humans can do outside of God's command can every be sanctified. No marriage, gay, straight, whatever, is going to have "sanctity" unless and until God is there.
Gays don't want to marry because they want God's blessing. (At least most don't.) They are seeking legal, secular rights.
If two people get married in a church, God has blessed that union.
If two people get married without God's blessing, it doesn't matter whether it's a man and a woman, two men, two women, or a sperm whale and a platypus, it's not going to be "sanctified."
The laws concerning gay marriage have NOTHING to do with what God may or may not bless. As if it could (!)
Why is this so hard for you people to understand?
See, that isn't what marriage should be. And THAT is why divorce rates are so high. Because marriage is nothing more than a legal right anymore. Because if we go on that limb, it doesn't matter if someone commits adultery. It doesn't matter if a husband beats his wife. It simply. Doesn't matter. Because it's nothing more than a legal right. And it's nothing more than signing a paper.
Bottom line for the world. No God? Then no problem. They can do whatever, whenever.
Why is that so hard for people to understand?
D
Can you think of one ''standard of ethics'' this is not based off something God said was good?
In order for this to be true you must have existed during man kinds formative years. Right? How else would anyone know where morality came from? So in order for us to say man has developed his own morality we would have to remove God from existance, because there is nothing about christianity that suggest mankind comes up with good ideas by himself is there? I mean I made a huge leap there but you can see the steps that it takes to reach that. I could fill this with verses about the inclination of evil in mans heart but I'm sure everyone knows them.
Here is one though: Genesis 5:6 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Only took 5 chapters in the first book of the bible for God to get to the point were your moral mankind was so evil he had to start over.
So to answer the question I think the only source of morality is God. We have no indication from mans history that he came up with any morals on his own and unless you think the bible is incorrect then all good comes from God.
If people followed God we wouldn't have to legislate them, but you know that most things we do consider sins are in fact illegal. Most, not all.
Mark 3
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Heals on the Sabbath
3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Pretty much again, we shouldn't have to make laws for man to do what God tells him to do is right or wrong.
Sin progressing is always harmful. Accepting it more and more is harmful. And all those other things that have been listed that heterosexual couples do that is sinful, well those are sinful too.
In order for this to be true you must have existed during man kinds formative years. Right? How else would anyone know where morality came from? So in order for us to say man has developed his own morality we would have to remove God from existance, because there is nothing about christianity that suggest mankind comes up with good ideas by himself is there? I mean I made a huge leap there but you can see the steps that it takes to reach that. I could fill this with verses about the inclination of evil in mans heart but I'm sure everyone knows them.
Here is one though: Genesis 5:6 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
Only took 5 chapters in the first book of the bible for God to get to the point were your moral mankind was so evil he had to start over.
So to answer the question I think the only source of morality is God. We have no indication from mans history that he came up with any morals on his own and unless you think the bible is incorrect then all good comes from God.
If people followed God we wouldn't have to legislate them, but you know that most things we do consider sins are in fact illegal. Most, not all.
Mark 3
New International Version (NIV)
Jesus Heals on the Sabbath
3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
Pretty much again, we shouldn't have to make laws for man to do what God tells him to do is right or wrong.
Sin progressing is always harmful. Accepting it more and more is harmful. And all those other things that have been listed that heterosexual couples do that is sinful, well those are sinful too.
What is the basis for objective moral values?
Yeah...animal behavior should now be the standard in determining what is moral in rational beings.
A marriage is supposed to reflect the image God created in the beginning, the union of man and woman. If same sex marriage was part of God's plan for a sacred marriage He would have joined two men or two women together at creation.
Part of the purpose of marriage is procreation which cannot be fulfilled in same sex marriages.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Yeah...animal behavior should now be the standard in determining what is moral in rational beings.
A marriage is supposed to reflect the image God created in the beginning, the union of man and woman. If same sex marriage was part of God's plan for a sacred marriage He would have joined two men or two women together at creation.
Part of the purpose of marriage is procreation which cannot be fulfilled in same sex marriages.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
T
According to whom?
Who gets to decide what marriage "should" be?
The English word "marriage" is not owned by God. It was an institution developed by humans, initially for the purpose of inheritance. It had nothing to do with love, and nothing to do with fidelity. For the first several centuries of the use of the word "marriage," and for several centuries before that in post-Roman western civilization, the concept of marriage did not even apply to anyone who didn't own property. The lowest classes paired off into family units, and various cultures had various ceremonies about it, but "marriage" was not really there. So, according to history and tradition, "marriage" is a vehicle for inheritance.
In Scripture, the few times the Hebrew and Greek words for "marriage" are used, they are spoken of in terms of a man purchasing a woman from the woman's father for a set price. There is no mention of love or fidelity on the man's part. The woman is supposed to remain faithful, but the man does not have the same requirement. If the woman is not a virgin (a widow, for example), she costs less. Is this what marriage is "supposed to be"?
What marriage is "supposed to be" is what marriage is: a legal contract between two people. The word has never had any sort of religious or holy connotations.
Now, if you want to talk about a union between a man and a woman, blessed by God as holy, based on mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and bound by a vow made before each other, God, and friends and family, you're talking about a specific church rite known as "Holy Matrimony." Yes, this is a sacred institution, and the government has no right to tell any church who may or may not be wed in matrimony. That is entirely up to God.
"Marriage" has always been a secular institution, and will continue to be so.
Actually, this does matter, if the wife bears a child that is not the husband's. For most of the English-speaking world for the last 5-10 centuries or so, it was rather assumed that men and women would have lovers on the side, it was just important that no children result from said trysts, because the children would not be able to inherit either from their biological father or from their mother's husband.
In fact, it was relatively recent that the Roman Catholic Church demanded celibacy from its priests. For some time, priests were expected to remain single, but that did not mean they wouldn't have relations with women. As long as any children resulting from said relations could not rightfully claim any property, and the property therefore remained with the church, that's all they cared about.
Wha? Where do you get this?
This is clearly wrong, because the woman's rights are clearly being violated. Duh!
So did you not understand my post, or are you willfully pretending it wasn't written?
Who gets to decide what marriage "should" be?
The English word "marriage" is not owned by God. It was an institution developed by humans, initially for the purpose of inheritance. It had nothing to do with love, and nothing to do with fidelity. For the first several centuries of the use of the word "marriage," and for several centuries before that in post-Roman western civilization, the concept of marriage did not even apply to anyone who didn't own property. The lowest classes paired off into family units, and various cultures had various ceremonies about it, but "marriage" was not really there. So, according to history and tradition, "marriage" is a vehicle for inheritance.
In Scripture, the few times the Hebrew and Greek words for "marriage" are used, they are spoken of in terms of a man purchasing a woman from the woman's father for a set price. There is no mention of love or fidelity on the man's part. The woman is supposed to remain faithful, but the man does not have the same requirement. If the woman is not a virgin (a widow, for example), she costs less. Is this what marriage is "supposed to be"?
What marriage is "supposed to be" is what marriage is: a legal contract between two people. The word has never had any sort of religious or holy connotations.
Now, if you want to talk about a union between a man and a woman, blessed by God as holy, based on mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and bound by a vow made before each other, God, and friends and family, you're talking about a specific church rite known as "Holy Matrimony." Yes, this is a sacred institution, and the government has no right to tell any church who may or may not be wed in matrimony. That is entirely up to God.
"Marriage" has always been a secular institution, and will continue to be so.
Actually, this does matter, if the wife bears a child that is not the husband's. For most of the English-speaking world for the last 5-10 centuries or so, it was rather assumed that men and women would have lovers on the side, it was just important that no children result from said trysts, because the children would not be able to inherit either from their biological father or from their mother's husband.
In fact, it was relatively recent that the Roman Catholic Church demanded celibacy from its priests. For some time, priests were expected to remain single, but that did not mean they wouldn't have relations with women. As long as any children resulting from said relations could not rightfully claim any property, and the property therefore remained with the church, that's all they cared about.
Wha? Where do you get this?
This is clearly wrong, because the woman's rights are clearly being violated. Duh!
So did you not understand my post, or are you willfully pretending it wasn't written?